Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

...<snip>...

Doronshadmi, you are a miserable host. You invite your dearest friend, Mosheklein, to these forums then you don't give him a change to speak.

Hush now. You have nothing new to say. You haven't had anything new to say in quite a while. Just the same old recycled copy/paste nonsense that even you don't understand (by your own admission, no less).

 

[The Man]

It's a caricature, of course. (The ears are to big.)
But it does have the essence of at least one sense in which Doron's OM involves observer participation in somewhat the same sense as the classic, is it a vase, or is it two faces facing each other.

I thinik Doron's idea is that with his OM, you will cover all the figures and the ground before settling on the conventional, serial, profane sum.
I'm still wondering if that would involve a different proceedure of calculation.

It does take an axe to traditional mathematical objectivity.

No more of a caricature then OM is self as Doron's particular caricature of math, big ears and all.

It only swings a very subjective axe, that slices into its own subjectivity while leaving “traditional mathematical objectivity” unscathed.

 

[jsfisher]

I thinik Doron's idea is that with his OM, you will cover all the figures and the ground before settling on the conventional, serial, profane sum.
I'm still wondering if that would involve a different proceedure of calculation.

One problem with that is there is a bit of a circle. Doron's number sequence doesn't exist without a significant dose of conventional arithmetic (and therefore set theory and logic, too). If he then uses his number sequence to argue for the over-throw of conventional arithmetic set theory, and logic, I think there may be a problem with his reasoning.

It does take an axe to traditional mathematical objectivity.

That would be a gentle understatement.

 

[The Man]

Man,

I have enter to this forum mostly because I heard from Doron
that someone think that there are 10 mistakes in my formula for OM

So are you simply unable or unwilling to answer such a simple question?

I am sorry that you did not found yet..
the time to look on the presentation in Sweden .
well 237 people enter already to the link since last Saturday !
~ 40 views per each day !

I’m sorry that you feel it is incumbent on anyone else to go looking for an answer just because you ‘think’ it may be there. As apposed to simply answering a direct question asked of you.

After 4 bilion of years
somting really intersting
happend in our planet earth .

Don't you think so ?

Moshe

Wow, talk about arrogance and hubris, you seem to have a very limited field of ‘interest’.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doronshadmi, you are a miserable host. You invite your dearest friend, Mosheklein, to these forums then you don't give him a change to speak.

...<snip>...

Moshe can talk whether I reply to you or not, It is up to him. Your line of thinking that is based on the idea of Doronshadmi controling Mosheklein actions, clealry says somethig about your thinking style.

It does not change at all the facts about your abstract inabilities:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4868966&postcount=4269

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4869542&postcount=4275

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4869560&postcount=4277

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4869606&postcount=4279

One problem with that is there is a bit of a circle. Doron's number sequence doesn't exist without a significant dose of conventional arithmetic (and therefore set theory and logic, too). If he then uses his number sequence to argue for the over-throw of conventional arithmetic set theory, and logic, I think there may be a problem with his reasoning.

Since you do not have direct perception of the difference between 0-dim element and 1-dim element, you have no idea of what are you talking about.

 

[The Man]

5 and 10 are two different and disjoint 0-dim locations along a 1-dim element, which exists at-once at both locations.

So they are not as disjoint as you would like to infer since they are not only “along a 1-dim element” but define that element.

Existing at-once in both locations is exactly the non-local property of a 1-dim element, that no 0-dim element like 5 or 10 has.

So your “non-local property” is simply a temporal consideration. Which multiple elements like 5 and 10 do have and in fact define a 1-dim element.

Your inability to get it is your blindness to the essential difference between Non-locality and Locality.

Since you are blind to this essential difference, you are using an illusion like "dragged 0-dim element", which is simply an utter nonsense.

No Doron it is simply your inability to understand that the definition of any higher dimensional elements depends on lower dimensional elements, with 0 dimension being the lowest that all others must inevitable depend upon.

There is a room for another 0-dim element between any two arbitrary 0-dim elements, exactly because there is always a 1-dim element that exists at-once in at least two different locations (which is a property that no 0-dim element has).

So then show the element that is missing as you claimed. The continuous nature of the real number line is what result in “another 0-dim element between any two arbitrary 0-dim elements” and ensures no gaps in the interval [5,10]. You claim there are gaps so it is up to you to show them.

The need to explain to you again and again such a fundamental direct perception, clearly shows the damage that the classical western school of thought caused to your natural perception abilities, by teachers like jsfisher.

Your attempt to use the continuous nature of the real number line to claim gaps in the real number line, that you can not specifically demonstrate, again demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

There is nothing to add here The Man, your brain's damage speaks for itself.


Next time think twice before you adopt head\hammer reasoning as your philosophy of life.

Next time think twice before you attempt to you a continuous aspect to support your discontinuous claims. There is nothing to be added there as the relation of your head to your buttocks speaks for itself.

By the way, jsfisher is in a better position than you, in this case, because he disagree with your "dragged 0-dim element" utter nonsense.

As a result jsfisher's non-honest attitude is fully exposed, because he uses perceptions that he clearly knows that they do not hold water, but he does not have the needed integrity in order to admit that he forces a reasoning that is fundamentally wrong.

Since jsfisher is also a teacher that earns his money by teaching others wrong notions, then such a person simply makes a crime, and I mean it, a crime.

More evidence of your misinterpretations and the head/buttocks interaction you operate under.

Form my experience of the past 7 years of OM's development processes in the internet, I discovered that most of the so called "educated people" belong to the category of blind persons like you (which are the victims of persons like jsfisher) or liars like jsfisher (which has the power to spread his lies just because he belongs to a community of people that have agreements that are based on lies, but since they are taken as "experts" of abstract notions nobody has the legitimacy to criticize them, and they continue to waste public's money and cause an irreversible damage to people by spreading their lies, and nobody stops them from doing these crimes).

You give me the motivation to do my best in order to reduce the number of the elements of your categories to 0.

Clearly your “best” ain’t cutting it.

Again, I claim that you or jsfisher (and if jsfisher gets it, then he is a liar that forces lies, which is a crime) have no abilities to get a single word of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4866938&postcount=4257 .

Again you have simply over estimated the significance of want you did actually write in that post.

 

[doronshadmi]

So they are not as disjoint as you would like to infer since they are not only “along a 1-dim element” but define that element.

No, 1-dim element (the simplest Non-local element) is not made, defined or whatever ... by 0-dim element (the simplest Local element).

A 1-dim element exists at-once in more than a one location.

A 0-dim element exists at-once in exactly one and only one location.

This is a beautiful fact, and you simply blind to it.

We do not need any academic degree in order to get this most simple and beautiful direct perception, and this is exactly what makes it so beautiful and independent of any subjective manipulations of any community of scholars, religious leaders, politicians or cultural viewpoints.

 

[jsfisher]

No, 1-dim element (the simplest Non-local element) is not made, defined or whatever ... by 0-dim element (the simplest Local element).

These are just terms you invented then apply whenever the spirit moves you...and you do so without regard to consistency.

A line has the same relationship to a point as a plane has to a line. And a place has the same relationship to a line as 3-space has to a plane. And so it goes on to higher and higher dimensions. But, you, doron, have denied there is this infinite hierarchy, because that takes your whole notion of absolute local vs. absolute non-local into the relative and trivial...the very place it has always been.

 

[doronshadmi]

These are just terms you invented then apply whenever the spirit moves you...and you do so without regard to consistency.

A line has the same relationship to a point as a plane has to a line. And a place has the same relationship to a line as 3-space has to a plane. And so it goes on to higher and higher dimensions. But, you, doron, have denied there is this infinite hierarchy, because that takes your whole notion of absolute local vs. absolute non-local into the relative and trivial...the very place it has always been.

0-dim element is the simplest representation of Locality (0-dim element exists at-once in exactly one and only one location).

1-dim element is the simplest representation of Non-locality (1-dim element exists at-once in more than a one location).


k=0 to ∞
n=k+1 to ∞
n-Non-locality\k-Locality association is invariant in any given n\k dims.

In general, dimensions are nothing but representations of Non-locality\Locality association.

It is amazing to think that you thought along 4000 posts that OM is based only on 1-dim\0-dim association.

Is this the result of your academic training?

 

[jsfisher]

0-dim element is the simplest representation of Locality (0-dim element exists at-once in exactly one and only one location).

1-dim element is the simplest representation of Non-locality (1-dim element exists at-once in more than a one location).

At once? You require temporal significance?

By the way, you'd need to define location to make these statements meaningful...unless you adopt the conventional meaning of point, but then your statements become trivial.

k=0 to ∞
n=k+1 to ∞
n-Non-locality\k-Locality association is invariant in any given n\k dims.

In general, dimensions are nothing but representations of Non-locality\Locality association.

Ok, so you have changed your previous position. It is all relative, and there is an infinit hierarchy...and it becomes a trivial concept.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

To MosheKlein:

Since you may have missed it, doronshadmi claims that my thoughts will be full of "peace-love-understanding" by using OM, and can't give any example to us.

Can you provide us with a real example of OM usage?

 

[doronshadmi]

By the way, you'd need to define location

No you don't, it is based on direct perception, no definition no bla bla bla with stirngs of symbols (whether it is formal or informal)...,
just direct perception.

Simple and beautiful, isn't it?

EDIT:

If you insist to define location, then form a direct perception it will observed like this:

bla bla bla bla bla ..., where bla bla bla bla bla ... is the local aspect of this definition and ____________ is the non-local aspect of this definition.

Aactually both bla bla bla bla bla ... and ____________ are two aspects of your Non-locality\Locality realm, where bla bla bla bla bla ... is a sting of your thoughts and ___________ is your memory that gathers them into a one notion.

Ok, so you have changed your previous position. It is all relative, and there is an infinit hierarchy...and it becomes a trivial concept.

No, it is an invariant fact that any higher dim is non-local w.r.t to any lower dim, and any lower dim is local w.r.t to any higher dim.

Furthermore, except 0-dim, which is local w.r.t to itself or w.r.t any higher dims, higher dims than 0-dim can be also local or non-local w.r.t themselves, for example:

- - - -

As about "trivial", here you totally fail to get the profound results that Non-locality\Locality direct perception has on the foundations of the mathematical science.

For example, your fundamental inability to used direct perception prevents from you to understand even a single word of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf .

 

[The Man]

No, 1-dim element (the simplest Non-local element) is not made, defined or whatever ... by 0-dim element (the simplest Local element).

A 1-dim element exists at-once in more than a one location.

A 0-dim element exists at-once in exactly one and only one location.

This is a beautiful fact, and you simply blind to it.

We do not need any academic degree in order to get this most simple and beautiful direct perception, and this is exactly what makes it so beautiful and independent of any subjective manipulations of any community of scholars, religious leaders, politicians or cultural viewpoints.

While any two “0-dim” elements exist in what? It’s ok you can say it, most of us here already understand it. “in more than a one location”. Thus defining a “1-dim” element known as a line segment.

 

[doronshadmi]

While any two “0-dim” elements exist in what?

They are not exist in (they are not sub-objects of a 1-dim element, and this is exactly where you fail).

Since a 1-dim element is not made of 0-dim elements, we say that 0-dims are on (not in) a 1-dim element.

 

[The Man]

No you don't, it is based on direct perception, no definition no bla bla bla with stirngs of symbols (whether it is formal or informal)...,
just direct perception.

Simple and beautiful, isn't it?

EDIT:

If you insist to define location, then form a direct perception it will observed like this:

bla bla bla bla bla ..., where bla bla bla bla bla ... is the local aspect of this definition and ____________ is the non-local aspect of this definition, get it?

So still no actual clear and objective definition, just more of your “stirngs of symbols” with “bla bla bla”

Once again you do not seem to realize that “it is based on direct perception” is a definition, albeit a very vague and subjective one.

No, it is an invariant fact that any higher dim is non-local w.r.t to any lower dim, and any lower dim is local w.r.t to any higher dim.

Furthermore, except 0-dim, which is local w.r.t to itself or w.r.t any higher dims, higher dims than 0-dim can be also local or non-local w.r.t themselves, for example:

- - - -

As about "trivial", here you totally fail to get the profound results that Non-locality\Locality direct perception has on the foundations of the mathematical science.

For example, your fundamental inability to used direct perception prevents from you to understand even a single word of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf .

Again just more of your “stirngs of symbols” with “bla bla bla” as well as vague and subjective references.

 

[The Man]

They are not exist in (they are not sub-objects of a 1-dim element, and this is exactly where you fail).

So the point 5 and the point 10 do not exist? This is where you fail, they do not need to be "sub-objects of a 1-dim element" to define a "1-dim element". "sub-objects of a 1-dim element" would be subsections of that line segment, also defined by two "0-dim" elements.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again you do not seem to realize that “it is based on direct perception” is a definition, albeit a very vague and subjective one.

Exaclty the opposite.

bla bla bla bla ... refers to the fundamental form of any possible bla bla bla bla ..., by using direct perception.

This fundamental form is too simple for subjective manipolations, and this is exactly why it is really form(mal) (not like the bla bla bla ... subjective agreements between some community of people).

 

[doronshadmi]

So the point 5 and the point 10 do not exist? This is where you fail, they do not need to be "sub-objects of a 1-dim element" to define a "1-dim element". "sub-objects of a 1-dim element" would be subsections of that line segment, also defined by two "0-dim" elements.

Again,

Since a 1-dim element is not made of 0-dim elements, we say that 0-dims are on (not in) a 1-dim element.

Your mind is a slave of your bla bla bla ... and as a result you do not get the form that enables this bla bla bla ..., in the first place.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4870382&postcount=4296 .

 

[The Man]

Again,

Since a 1-dim element is not made of 0-dim elements, we say that 0-dims are on (not in) a 1-dim element.

Well you can and do say whatever you want, but we do in fact say that a line segment is defined by points.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well you can and do say whatever you want, but we do in fact say that a line segment is defined by points.

Please read all of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4870384&postcount=4297 .